Aedifion MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get[s] all projects' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, how pagination works (beyond listing parameters), or what happens on errors. For a tool with pagination parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by parameter details. There's no wasted text, and the structure is clear. It could be slightly improved by integrating parameter explanations more seamlessly, but it's efficient overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, error handling) and usage guidelines, making it minimally adequate but not fully helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics by listing 'page' and 'per_page' with brief labels ('Page number' and 'Items per page'), which clarifies their basic purpose. However, it doesn't explain default values, valid ranges, or how null values are handled, leaving key details undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all projects in the realm.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('projects in the realm'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'get_realm_companies', which would be needed for a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_project' (for a single project) or 'get_realm_companies' (for other realm entities), nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage. The lack of comparative or contextual advice limits its utility for an AI agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.